A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://vikingsmessageboard.com/
"We have a great relationship with coach Frazier," Wilf said. "We've had a lot of communicating back and forth on that. But now we're turning the page to the 2013 season and our focus is on, first, winning our division, which is a very tough division, and we want to get back to where we were a few years ago, and that's the top of our division. We know it's competitive, but that's our No. 1 focus. From there, hopefully it's our best opportunity for our ultimate goal, which is to win the championship."
I don't think that means an NFC North title will be required for Frazier to keep his job in 2014, but it's clear the Vikings want to see more than they saw last season. Asked if there was a possibility of addressing Frazier's contract during the season, as the Vikings did in 2009 with former coach Brad Childress, Wilf said: "Once the season goes, we're not discussing any contractual relationships or anything of that sort."
So one way or the other, the Vikings will face a franchise decision next offseason. There are no more options in Frazier's contract, meaning he is signed through 2014. Given most teams' reluctance to enter a season with a "lame duck" coach in the final year of his contract, the Vikings almost certainly will give Frazier an extension after the 2013 season or fire him. The stakes are as high for this franchise as they have been in a while.
I wonder if this is this really true, or if it's more a situation of owners throwing head coaching contracts and money around. Most coaches don't make astronomical salaries, and they don't count against the cap, so it's fairly painless to fire them before they enter the final year of their contract.Mothman wrote:So one way or the other, the Vikings will face a franchise decision next offseason. There are no more options in Frazier's contract, meaning he is signed through 2014. Given most teams' reluctance to enter a season with a "lame duck" coach in the final year of his contract, the Vikings almost certainly will give Frazier an extension after the 2013 season or fire him. The stakes are as high for this franchise as they have been in a while.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but I think the statement you highlighted referred to reluctance to ask a coach to stay through a "lame duck" season rather than referring to a reluctance to fire him with one year remaining on his deal. It seems like owners have been a bit more willing to let coaches enter "lame duck" seasons in recent years but the conventional wisdom seems to be that the uncertainty involved is unhealthy and it's better to either extend the coach's contract or fire him than to have him coach out the last year of his deal.Eli wrote: I wonder if this is this really true, or if it's more a situation of owners throwing head coaching contracts and money around. Most coaches don't make astronomical salaries, and they don't count against the cap, so it's fairly painless to fire them before they enter the final year of their contract.
Did I say anything about a _reluctance_ to fire a coach with one year remaining? I don't see it, but if you read it that way, I'm talking about exactly the opposite. It's not a lot of skin off an owners nose to fire a guy with a year or more remaining on a contract.Mothman wrote: Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but I think the statement you highlighted referred to reluctance to ask a coach to stay through a "lame duck" season rather than referring to a reluctance to fire him with one year remaining on his deal.
I understood your point about firing the coach. I just wasn't fully seeing the connection you were making to the Siefert line you highlighted (which is where the word reluctance was used and why I used it). Nevermind. It's not important. Financially speaking, I agree that it's usually not hard for a coach to be fired with one year remaining.Eli wrote:Did I say anything about a _reluctance_ to fire a coach with one year remaining? I don't see it, but if you read it that way, I'm talking about exactly the opposite. It's not a lot of skin off an owners nose to fire a guy with a year or more remaining on a contract.
Maybe it's just two ways of looking at the same thing... If an owner doesn't know for certain that his head coach will be rehired for next year, he may as well fire him now and get the coaching transition over with this season.
I just hope they don't get so wrapped up in where they finish they end up letting Frazier go if he does another good job but doesn't get the team as far as the Wilfs had hoped.mansquatch wrote:Frasier's contract is one of the last bits of uncertainty surrounding the Vikings Management structure. Right now I think he'll get an extension, but that could change in the regular season. I haven't thought too much of it to be honest. There just has been too many more interesting things happening from a fan standpoint.
I'll say this for Frasier: This is the first time in really 20 years that I've felt like both the guy holding the clipboard and the guy handling personnel really know what they are doing. For that reason alone I want them to extend Frasier, but I also know there is a lot more to it than that.
Ultimately, isn't "where they finish" the best gauge for how good of a job the head coach did? What other criteria do you apply if a team goes from 10-6 and in the playoffs to (say) 8-8 and misses the post season?Mothman wrote:I just hope they don't get so wrapped up in where they finish they end up letting Frazier go if he does another good job but doesn't get the team as far as the Wilfs had hoped.
I dont want the Vikes to become one of those teams like the Browns or Raiders that seem to change coaches every 2-3 years.
You look at the particular circumstances. Did injuries play a significant role in the team's record? What were the nature of the losses? Was the team well-prepared? Were the game plans sound? Was the schedule more difficult? Did the coach manage his players and staff well? W/L records are the bottom line but as a tool for evaluating coaching they're very simplistic. A few key injuries alone could easily lead to a team dropping a couple of games in the W/L column but wouldn't necessarily involve the quality of the coaching. I realize it's a bottom line business but a lot of factors other than coaching can influence wins and losses. Some great coaches have followed winning seasons with sub-par seasons so I think the owners have a responsibility to look beyond the W/L record and evaluate the overall job the coach has done.Eli wrote:Ultimately, isn't "where they finish" the best gauge for how good of a job the head coach did? What other criteria do you apply if a team goes from 10-6 and in the playoffs to (say) 8-8 and misses the post season?
It makes sense to me too.To me, it makes all the sense in the world to let Frazier coach next season, see how it goes, and then make a decision on his future with the team.
They won't be lame ducks next year. They would be lame ducks in 2014 if they didn't get extensions.I don't buy the argument that it's a distraction to the coach or his staff by being lame ducks.